The message on the display boards stated “Welcome, Lancaster General Hospital Board of Trustees, Thursday, November 18, 2010”
Some welcome. While NewsLanc’s Watchdog was seated and readying for the meeting, the LGH’s uniformed head of security came over and sternly asked if the Watchdog had a camera. The Watchdog respectfully responded that he had one in his briefcase. The security guard advised that photos were not allowed to be taken. The Watchdog said “Okay”.
But the answer did not seem to satisfy the head of security. He then told the Watchdog that there was a sign outside saying no cameras permitted and asked the Watchdog to assure him that he would not use the camera. Hey what? Did he want a notarized statement?
Sensing that this was an act of bullying if not purposeful intimidation, the Watchdog told the head of security that others did not find it necessary for the Watchdog to say he agreed to something two times.
Unsatisfied, the head of security again sought confirmation and the Watchdog just ignored him and went back to setting up his equipment… his unspoken but implied message being “p… off.”
Would any real local policeman have acted in such an offensive manner? Is it a sense of inferiority that causes Franklin & Marshall and LGH faux police to act so belligerently and unprofessionally? Does not the arrogant attitude of the head of security reflect that of management?
Had the Watchdog not been dressed in expensive slacks, jacket and tie, we suspect he would have been hauled out of the meeting and possibly placed under arrest! Whether the guard got a signal from another to desist or thought better of the matter, he eventually did move on.
As the sign said, “Welcome.”
That’s interesting.
Did they ask the same of everyone there with camera equiped cell phones, IPODS or secret hidden spy camera’s?
I had to turn over my camera before I entering the room even though it was secured in my camera bag.
I was advised that I would be arrested if I did not comply.
EDITOR: You weren’t wearing an expensive outfit. After reflection, the head of security conceded that I was a member of the “untortuable class”, per Graham Greene’s ‘Our Man In Havana.’
Strictures like this are unfortunate. No doubt. However, I can’t help but wonder if this policy exists largely in response to camera-abuses that have become fairly commonplace in Lancaster’s public forums. Some local activists (whose causes are often honorable) have lately taken to pointing cameras in the faces of public figures while blasting them with questions. If the spontaneous interviewee is bothered by the camera in his face (I would be, regardless of the circumstances) the conversation becomes a dispute over the filming itself.
As the camera continues to roll, the interaction becomes reminiscent of a tourist taunting one of the motionless British Royal Guards.
The collected footage is then posted online to suggest a scandalous suppression of the truth. I mean, heck, if someone doesn’t want a camera in their face, they must be hiding something, they must be involved in this scandal, they must be oppressing someone—right?! Wrong. Bring a video camera to a family gathering this holiday season and start taping your relatives while they eat their mashed potatoes. Step in nice and close and see what happens.
Here a video posted by one such activist: http://vimeo.com/14564575 Around the 4:18 mark you’ll see our host video-recording a random wagon-full of preschoolers as they are carted through downtown for a little day trip. And—surprise, surprise—the women entrusted with their care ask him to stop filming. How scandalous! A preschool teacher didn’t want a strange man to videotape their students.
This is just one of many, many abuses that I have seen. A First Amendment right? Perhaps. But, then again, is it a First Amendment Right to follow someone down the street, waving your hands in their face and calling them names? Maybe that is, too. But it’s also harassment.
Just to re-state my point: Excessive restrictions on camera-use is unfortunate. It shouldn’t be. And certainly LGH can bear some of the blame. But MOST of the blame should be on the heads of those who push their cameras in peoples faces like some annoying, drunk uncle while calling it political activism.